• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

Toke said:
Yes, it shows in what order the assorted groups of colums collapsed.
I am not qualified to start second guessing why or how.

Do you really think you are?
Click to expand...
Yes. This requires a basic understanding of framing or the willingness to understand what I am trying to explain.

Group 7 was supported laterally by Groups 6 & 8. That is, the girders connecting these 3 groups provided mutual lateral support to each other.
Do you know what I mean by that?
 
I don't understand why you guys just don't ignore this troll and let him babble away to himself.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Do you think NIST lied about it?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Christopher7

Or do you think NIST is lying?
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Christopher7

That's the point. NIST lied.
Click to expand...


Which is what he is doing anyway. Simply making crap up as he goes along, convincing nobody, ignoring all rational posts that are put to him and babbling the same rubbish over and over again. Let this thread die guys, surely everybody as better things to do with their time than address the incoherent rubbish of an internet troll.


 
Ok Chris, Why even bring up its north-south support?? I don't understand exactly why this is part of the conversation. From what I see, it may not have been able to loose it N-S soupport, I see what your saying. But, could it have lost its east-west support because of the columns that have already collapsed??

Please forgive me I did not read all of this exchange. But, tell me why we are even discussing its N-S support. Did I miss something somewhere?? Am I not understanding what the arrows on the second drawing you posted??
 
These guys don't know diddly squat. They use verbiage to bluff their way thru denial. NIST said that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration and these guys are trying to say the analysis isn't accurate. Claims of expertise from anonymous posters are worthless.
Click to expand...

That would you - the anonymous poster with no understanding of the issue.

You made a claim of accurate. It's been pointed out to you that is one of your fundamental misunderstandings.


Let me appeal to the carpenter in you. It's not verbiage its a simple discussion of how good are the numbers. One of the important points here that unfortunately zooms right by you is that the numbers are only a little good.
 
The 9/11 Commission was a cover up. So is the NIST report. They claimed something that is impossible. Come out of your personal incredulity cage and deal with the facts.
Click to expand...

What facts have you posted that you understand?
 
Originally Posted by H'ethetheth
I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I'm basically a fresh engineer (since last december). You can see part of my thesis project in my avatar. It's a render of plastic head of the robotic zebra fish larva I developed for Wageningen University to do performance measurements with. Unfortunately, there was only money to hire me for a couple of months to get the build started after I graduated, so I'm looking for a job at the moment.

ETA: Oh, and I see I forgot to mention what kind of aerospace. Well, all kinds, basically. My major (not sure if that's the right term) was design and integration, so you could say I'm a generalist. Among specialists you could also say that I know next to nothing about just about anything.
tfk said:
Welcome to the ranks.

A thought for you... Lots of poeple knows scientists. Few people know engineers. Learn about the luminaries in your field. There are some absolutely incredible stories.

A couple of suggestions:
The real story of Tesla & Westinghouse.
James Watt
Harold Edgerton (inventor of the strobe, and E in EG&G)
Kelly Johnson (skunk works, of course)
Elmer Sperry (gyroscope)
The story of radar (as told in "The device that changed the world" by Buderi)
The incredible engineering challenges behind the atom & H bomb ("The making of the atom bomb" & "Dark Sun", by R Rhodes.

These are all astounding stories. It'll make you feel proud to be part of a fraternity to be familiar with them.

Tom

PS. And a person whose name gets thrown around a lot in here has got a lifetime of achievement that puts him in with all of these guys: Zdenek Bazant. Check out his CV & bibliography page at Northwestern...
Click to expand...

Thank you Tom and Hetheneethhehth...

What's notable about these posts are the following:

1. A young engineer has absorbed the tools of academic engineering and is receptive to learn - as we all do and did, from the life experience of those rationalists before us.
Newton saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants.
FineWine appears tall because he stands on the piled-up carcasses of idiots.
The rest of us stand in line to get a piece of what's left.

2. tfk has discerningly selected exceptional engineers to learn from.

3. tfk's advice reflects wisdom from experience and judgement - the ability to make wise assessments.
"The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - Hume

This is the main failure of the Conspiracy Hypothesists (CHs) - they are immature in judgement- regardless of age.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
1. You said above that "Group 7 did not loose lateral support in any direction on any floor."
Are you suggesting that Column 69 was not connected to 72? That C68 was not connected to C71? That C67 was not connected to C70?
Click to expand...
No. the horizontal collapse was 2 rows away and caused some lateral stress but it did not cause any loss of lateral support.

Is there some secret "framing principle" that would tell you to leave 47 story tall columns UNSUPPORTED in the "east-west" direction?
Click to expand...
You don't understand the problem. NIST said Group 7 lost lateral support in the north-south direction before Groups 6 or 8 had failed. That is a lie because Groups 6 & 8 were providing the north-south lateral support.

2. What is the typical aspect ratio (Length:Width:Height) of one of your steel framing jobs? How would that compare to the aspect ratio for the WTC7 building?
Click to expand...
The problem at hand is no one of aspect ratio, it's about a fictional loss of north-south lateral support.

Do you think that frames that are really, really, really tall & thin are a little more endangered by loss of lateral support (EVEN "east-west" lateral support) than shorter & wider frames??

3. As Newton noted, if the 40 or so individual girders all pulled all together down & to the east on those really, really, really tall & thin moment frames, do you think that there is a possibility that they might, oh, I don't know, "feel it"?
Click to expand...
East-west is not what NIST lied about.

4. NIST says that the collapse of WTC1 damaged Column 66.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The debris damage did not damage the core columns or girders. [see pg 182-187]

In a framed building, do you think that what anatomists would refer to as "seriously blunt dissection" of a building (aka, a couple thousand tons of debris falling on it), might propagate a teensy bit of damage thru the horizontal girders that attach the damaged column to the immediately adjacent columns?
Click to expand...
Get serious. It did not cause any girder failure.

NIST is clearly not the people that you wish to be casually slandering. Because NIST did NOT provide this sequence that has your panties in such a bunch.
Click to expand...
You are hardly the group to criticize anyone for calling someone a liar. :D :D :D
If you are claiming that the government can't be criticized or called a liar because of their exalted position, you are wrong.I have not only the right but the obligation to point out a government lie.

You best start calling the folks at Intel, and ANSYS, and LS-DYNA a "bunch of liars". Because it was their software & hardware (DAMN NWO CPUs !!) that provided all those answers.
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying the 13 people who signed off on the final report committed fraud.
 
Chris,

Can you point to me where it says thata group 7 lost N/S support in the NIST report. I cannot find it, as I am on a slow internet connection, and am having a heck of a time getting it to DL.

Thanks.
 
triforcharity said:
Chris,

Can you point to me where it says thata group 7 lost N/S support in the NIST report. I cannot find it, as I am on a slow internet connection, and am having a heck of a time getting it to DL.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]
13. Horizontal Progression of Failure.
"The middle line of interior columns directly behind the initially severed exterior columns buckled before the two north-south lines of columns immediately to their east. The middle line of interior columns lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."


 
Christopher7 said:
The 9/11 Commission was a cover up. So is the NIST report. They claimed something that is impossible. Come out of your personal incredulity cage and deal with the facts.
Click to expand...
Snort.

You know what's impossible? Any sort of "inside job" with respect to the events of 9/11. Couldn't happen. Didn't happen.

Rather than find a conceivably possible conspiracy theory, you, and others like you, selected the very most laughably impossible one. Congratulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom